[Report of the commissioners appointed for stating and examining the public accounts]

To his grace John [Hay], marquis of Tweeddale, her majesty's high commissioner, and the honourable estates of parliament, the report of the commissioners appointed for stating and examining the public accounts.

May it please your grace and lordships,

According to the power given us by the sixth act of the last session of parliament, we met upon 17 September 1703, and, in order to discharging the trust reposed upon us, have since that time made all possible enquiry into the public funds of supply and inland excise, from 11 April 1689 to 1 May 1701.

We have enquired into all the extraordinary funds granted in the several sessions of his majesty King William's parliament, as of hearth money, poll-money and tunnage.

We have examined the accounts of the admiralty and enquired into the condition of the kingdom in relation to stores and magazines.

We have stated the arrears due to the army, as likewise all the public debts, which accounts we humbly presume to lay before your grace and lordships in such a method as we judge may with the most ease give you a view of the public management during the aforesaid time.

The first account of supply and inland excise from 8 March 1689 to 1 May 1690 was given in by Sir James Oswald, then general receiver, the charge whereof is as follows:

  Scots money
Charge £ s d
Firstly: per a list of rests given up by John Drummond and James Maxwell to the said Sir James Oswald preceding February 1689 468,483 18 -
Secondly: per 4 months' supply 288,533 6 8
Thirdly: per ¾ of a year's inland excise from 1 February to 1 November 1689 281,903 4 -
Fourthly: per 6 months' inland excise from 1 November 1689 to 1 May 1690 153,926 10 8
Fifthly: per the inland excise of these shires and burghs that were in collection from 1 November 1689 to 1 November 1690 10,596 - -
Total 1,203,442 19 4
Discharge      
Firstly: by money paid to the forces 1,045,873 2 -
Secondly: by ¾ of a year's deficiency of inland excise in Argyllshire 3,994 4 -
Thirdly: by exemptions of mortified lands and of those belonging to the lords of the session 4,864 18 4
Fourthly: by the accountants' salary 3,600 - -
Fifthly: by rests of inland excise and supply 135,262 13 -
Sixthly: balance due by the accountant 9,848 2 -
Total 1,203,442 19 4

Observations upon this account:

Firstly: that the rests given up by John Drummond and James Maxwell, extending to the sum of £468,483 18s as above were paid in, but the account was never fitted before the lords of the treasury, yet the same was audited by lords auditors and a balance found resting to them of £8,430 1s.

Secondly: that there was paid to [William Douglas], duke of Hamilton and [George Melville], earl of Melville, his majesty's commissioners to the parliament, to their attendants and for necessaries to the secretary's office £89,100 as per the treasury's accounts and the minutes of our committee dated 19 October 1703.

Thirdly: that the sum of £1,200 was paid to Sir Alexander Bruce of Broomhall for services done, but we could not come to the knowledge of what these were.

Fourthly: that the sum of £16,558 4s was paid for provisions to the English forces.

Fifthly: that the sum of £1,740 was paid to [David Leslie/Melville], earl of Leven and town of Montrose for levying seamen to the English service.

Sixthly: that the ¾ of a year's deficiency of inland excise by the shire of Argyll, as is mentioned in the discharge, was remitted to the heritors of that shire by a letter from the king.

Seventhly: that all the other articles of the discharge are fully instructed.

Eighthly: that the fifth and sixth articles of the discharge are carried to the subsequent account.

The second account of supply and inland excise from 1 May 1690 to 1 February 1691 was given in by Sir James Oswald and James Dunlop, then general receivers.

Charge      
Firstly: per the rests of supply and inland excise as per the preceding account 135,262 13 -
Secondly: by balance of the aforesaid account resting by the said Sir James 9,848 2 -
Thirdly: by 8 months' cess 577,066 13 4
Fourthly: by 3 months' cess more 216,000 - -
Fifthly: by 9 months' inland excise from 1 May 1690 to 1 February 1691 230,158 8 -
Sixthly: by the inland excise of several shires under collection from 1 May 1690 to 1 February 1691 27,585 16 8
Seventhly: by money remitted from England for the service of the English forces then in Scotland 48,000 - -
Eighthly: balance due to the accountants 51,420 13 -
Total 1,295,342 6 -
Discharge      
Firstly: by cash paid to the forces and otherwise by the treasury's orders 861,736 4 6
Secondly: by allowances to Charles Murray of Hadden and Young of Leny 16,864 - -
Thirdly: by allowances to the collectors of inland excise in Aberdeenshire 239 11 4
Fourthly: by provisions furnished to the forces 252,262 6 4
Fifthly: by payments, allowances and rests as per the particular account 136,969 1 4
Sixthly: by the inland excise of Argyllshire 14,471 2 6
Seventhly: by the accountants' salaries as general receivers and commissaries of the army 12,800 - -
Total 1,295,342 6 -

Observations on this account:

Firstly: that there was paid to [George Melville], earl of Melville, his majesty's commissioner to the third session of parliament, and to Sir William Lockhart, solicitor, £62,063 18s.

Secondly: that the fourth article of the discharge is instructed by a particular account, but we find many articles in the said account overcharged.

Thirdly: that there were allowances given to the collectors of the supply for £46,680 by his majesty's letters to the treasury.

Fourthly: that there was resting by several shires of their cess and excise the sum of £78,182, which was never carried to any subsequent account.

Fifthly: that the 3 months' cess imposed by the second act of the third session of the parliament of King William and Queen Mary was not applied according to the design for which it was granted, namely: for payment of the debts due to the country and the arrears to the army.

Sixthly: that the accountants in their charge have omitted to state the fractions of cess, being £400.

Seventhly: that the balance of £51,420 13s was resting to Sir James Oswald and James Dunlop, but we find that afterwards they received £28,653 1s, therefore there is still resting to them of the said balance the sum of £22,767 11s 9d.

The third account of supply and inland excise from 1 February 1691 to 1 February 1692 was given in by Sir George Hamilton and Sir Robert Anstruther, general receivers.

  Scots money
Charge £ s d
Firstly: for 5 months' supply 360,666 13 -
Secondly: per inland excise from 1 February 1691 to 1 February 1692 329,095 12 -
Thirdly: per the inland excise, which was in collection from 1 February to 1 November 1691 14,867 3 -
Total 704,629 8 -
Discharge      
Firstly: by subsistence to the forces from 1 February 1691 to 1 January 1692 575,884 16 -
Secondly: per his majesty's warrants 34,800 - -
Thirdly: per the treasury's warrants 28,530 7 -
Fourthly: per deficients 63,457 5 -
Fifthly: per expenses for Charles Murray's suspension 180 - -
Sixthly: per annualrent of £11,411 19s 1d sterling 1,540 9 -
Seventhly: balance due by the accountants 226 11 -
Total 704,629 8 -

Observations on this account:

Firstly: that the fifth and sixth articles of the discharge should not have been allowed.

Secondly: that the fourth and seventh articles are carried to the subsequent accounts.

Thirdly: that all the other articles of this discharge are sufficiently instructed.

The fourth account of supply and inland excise from 1 February 1692 to 1 May 1693 was given in by Sir George Hamilton and Sir Robert Anstruther.

Charge      
Firstly: per supply and excise resting in February 1692 63,457 5 -
Secondly: per balance of the preceding account 218 16 -
Thirdly: per inland excise resting by Banff 112 7 -
Fourthly: per 22 months' supply at Candlemas [2 February] 1692 180,333 6 -
Fifthly: per 22 months' supply at Lammas [1 August] 1692 180,333 6 -
Sixthly: per 22 months' supply at Candlemas 1693 180,333 6 -
Seventhly: per 15 months' inland excise 453,000 - -
Total 1,057,788 6 -
Discharge      
Firstly: by money paid to the forces and otherwise 1,007,438 15 -
Secondly: by rests of supply and inland excise 49,447 2 -
Thirdly: by balance due by the accountants 902 9 -
Total 1,057,758 6 -

Observations upon this account:

Firstly: that there was paid in to [William Douglas], duke of Hamilton, his majesty's commissioner to the parliament in 1693, the sum of £12,000.

Secondly: that the accountants were allowed £180 of poundage for advancing the said sum.

Thirdly: that the accountants had an allowance of £1,800 as poundage of £72,000 paid to Bailie Brand for arms, notwithstanding that by their contract with the treasury they were to have poundage only for what they advanced for the use of the forces.

Fourthly: that the accountants had an allowance of £600 for issuing their commission as commissaries of the army.

Fifthly: that the accountants had £240 allowed to them for sending posts through the country to stop the giving of corn and straw to the troops, though they had considerable salaries for that effect.

Sixthly: the above-mentioned sum of rests, being £49,447 2s, was never carried to any subsequent account, only the lords of the treasury allowed Sir George Hamilton to collect the sum of £20,178 16s, but there was never a stated account for the said rests.

Seventhly: that the aforesaid balance of £902 9s was deposited by the accountants in the hands of Sir Thomas Moncrieff, but never accounted for.

The fifth account of supply and inland excise from 1 May 1693 to 1 October 1695 was given in by Sir James Oswald and Sir Alexander Bruce, general receivers.

Charge      
Firstly: per 18 months' supply 1,298,400 - -
Secondly: per 23 months' inland additional excise 552,000 - -
Thirdly: per 26 months' inland annexed excise 845,600 - -
Fourthly: per levy money for 1,600 foot soldiers 28,800 - -
Fifthly: per the inland excise of the shire of Argyll from 1 November 1692 to 1 November 1684 3,082 11 -
Total 2,727,882 11 -
Discharge      
Firstly: per payments made to the forces and otherwise 2,213,367 9 -
Secondly: per extraneous precepts 361,587 10 -
Thirdly: per rests of supply and excise 115,387 6 -
Fourthly: balance due by the accountants 37,540 6 -
Total 2,727,882 11 -

Observations on this account:

Firstly: that there was given to [William Douglas], duke of Hamilton and [John Hay], marquis of Tweeddale, his majesty's commissioner to the parliament of 1693 and 1695, £47,400.

Secondly: that there was the sum of £64,032 put in the hands of Sir Thomas Moncrieff (in which is included the £902 9s as the balance of the fourth account) who discharged himself of a part thereof, namely: of £30,909 5s applied for the payment of arrears to some officers by the king's and treasury's warrants, but the remainder, namely: £33,122 15s was wholly exhausted by fees and pensions to the civil list.

Thirdly: that there was given to Captain William Erskine £2,255 over and above what was due to him of a bargain of arms.

Fourthly: that there was paid out by the lords of the treasury upon my Lord Neill Campbell's account £1,315 4s over and above what was due to him as governor of Dumbarton Castle.

Fifthly: that there was a balance of £24,714 10s charged upon [David] Boyle of Kelburn, now earl of Glasgow, and his partners as the remainder of their tack duty of inland additional excise, but we have found this cleared by a posterior account as per the committee's minutes, 18 January 1704.

Sixthly: that there was a balance resting by Sir Thomas Kennedy of his tack duty of the inland annexed excise amounting to £80,730, but the same is cleared by a posterior account as per the committee's minutes, 18 January 1704. In this account of Sir Thomas Kennedy's, we observe that there was given to him an abatement of his tack duty of £6,000; secondly: that there was an allowance given to the shire of Argyll of £20,414 16s; thirdly: that there was an injunction given to Sir Thomas for £28,800 until the determination of two processes before the lords of the session; fourthly: that when these processes are ended Sir Thomas will have £22,464 to pay in to the treasury; fifthly: there was also in this account £12,000 given to Sir Alexander Bruce of Broomhall.

Seventhly: upon the aforesaid fifth account, we observe that the accountants sought an allowance of £6,980 7s as the poindage of £255,140 7s, which should not have been allowed, poindage being only due according to their contract out of the precepts drawn for the forces.

Eighthly: that the balance of the account, namely: £37,540 6s was resting by the accountants, together likewise with £12,000 more received from Sir Thomas Kennedy, which they charge themselves with, being in all £49,539 12s, but that afterwards by a posterior account they had cleared themselves of £34,399 4s, so that there remains still a balance due by them of £15,140 8s as per the committee's minute, 18 January 1704.

In the aforesaid posterior account given in by Sir Alexander Bruce of Broomhall, we find that there was £30,144 lent to [James Douglas], duke of Queensberry and that his grace's bond lies still in the treasury for the same.

The charge and discharge of Sir Alexander Bruce's account has been examined but not fitted in the treasury.

The sixth account of supply and inland excise from 1 October 1695 to 1 May 1697 was given in by Sir James Oswald and James Dunlop, general receivers.

Charge      
Firstly: per 6 months' supply 432,198 14 -
Secondly: per 3 months' supply 216,099 6 -
Thirdly: per 4 months' supply 288,132 8 -
Fourthly: per 12 months' inland excise 969,600 - -
Fifthly: balance due to the accountants 15,881 11 -
Total 1,921,911 19 -
Discharge      
Firstly: by payments made to the forces and otherwise 1,576,648 - -
Secondly: by money paid to the muster-master 4,788 - -
Thirdly: by extraneous precepts 67,229 6 -
Fourthly: by a part of the tack duty of the excise detained by [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven and his partners extending to 273,246 13 -
Total 1,921,911 19 -

Observations on this account:

Firstly: that there was the sum of £21,000 given to [George Baillie], laird of Jerviswood, then receiver of his majesty's rents, to enable him to pay a precept drawn by the lords of the treasury for the benefit of [John Murray], earl of Tullibardine, his majesty's high commissioner to the parliament of 1696.

Secondly: that there was lent to the late [Archibald Campbell], duke of Argyll £9,437 4s, for which his grace's bond is still lying in the treasury.

Thirdly: that there was given to Colonel [George] Hamilton £2,400 as a reward for his raising recruits in this kingdom for the English service.

Fourthly: that there was given to Sir Archibald Murray of Blackbarony £7,332 for repairing the castle of Edinburgh, the accounts whereof were to be given in to the treasury with an attestation from [David Leslie/Melville, earl of] Leven showing that the sum of £3,600 of the aforesaid £7,332 had been profitably expended in reparations, but we have seen no such attestation, though Blackbarony has instructed that all the money he received was exhausted by payments made to workmen and others.

Fifthly: that there was lent to Colonel Hamilton for raising recruits £588, for which his bond lies in the treasury.

Sixthly: that there was an allowance of £31,680 given to the accountants for foraging two regiments of dragoons for three months, which sum includes 12d per day more for every horse than they had agreed upon with the treasury.

Seventhly: that there was an allowance given to the accountants of £1,200 for the loss of a bark, though the article was not instructed.

Eighthly: that there was an allowance given to them of £4,716 16s as his majesty's part of supply in Orkney and Shetland, though the article was not instructed.

Ninthly: that there was an allowance given to them of £37,770 for foraging the horse guards whilst upon the English establishment.

Tenthly: that the fourth article of the discharge is not fully cleared by my Lord Belhaven and his partners, except as to the sum of £57,379 given down by the lords of the treasury upon the account of legal allowances, but as to the remainder, we are of opinion that though there was an act of parliament in his lordship's favour, yet he is thereby only stated in an account and reckoning with the treasury.

Eleventhly: that the accountants in their charge have omitted the fractions of cess, which amounts to £1,300 6s.

This account was fitted in the treasury on 7 March 1699.

The seventh account of supply and inland excise from 1 May 1697 to 1 May 1699 was given in by Sir George Hamilton and partners.

Charge      
Firstly: per 18 months' supply 1,296,000 - -
Secondly: per 12 months' inland excise at 4d per pint 384,000 - -
Thirdly: per 12 months' inland excise at 6d per pint 499,200 - -
Fourthly: from Provost [Sir George] Home [of Kello] and partners 60,000 - -
Total 2,239,200 - -
Discharge      
Firstly: per payments made to the forces and the admiralty 2,002,067 7 -
Secondly: per extraneous precepts 162,704 7 -
Thirdly: per rests of inland excise and abatements as per accounts 74,188 6 -
Fourthly: balance due by the accountants 240 - -
Total 2,239,200 - -

Observations upon this account:

Firstly: that there was £48,000 paid to the admiralty for providing ships of war and clearing the seamen, notwithstanding that the poll of 1695 was wholly appropriated for that end.

Secondly: that the accountants had an allowance of £6,132 for foraging the horse guards during the sitting of the parliament, in which form there is included 13s per day for each horse more than what they had agreed upon with the treasury, so that they had 18s for each horse per day.

Thirdly: that they had also an allowance of £5,449 10s for foraging the said guards from 1 September 1698 to 15 October thereafter.

Fourthly: that there was an allowance given to the accountants of £4,200 for foraging some horses over and above the number they had agreed upon with the treasury, though neither the number of horses nor the time they were foraged is instructed.

Fifthly: that there was £12,000 lent to [James Douglas], duke of Queensberry, for which his grace's bond lies in the treasury, so that his grace is in all debtor to the public for £42,144.

Sixthly: that there was an abatement of £12,000 given to the tacksmen of the 4d excise upon the pint in 1698.

Seventhly: there was given up in the discharge £56,104 5s resting of supply and excise by several shires and burghs, but there is only £38,504 carried to any subsequent account, so that £20,104 5s is still resting by the tacksmen of the excise and others.

Eighthly: that there was an abatement of £6,000 given to the tacksmen of the 6d excise upon the pint in 1698.

Ninthly: that the accountants in their charge have omitted the fractions of supply that make the sum of £2,400 still resting by them.

This account was fitted and discharged to the accountants by the treasury upon 20 February 1700.

The eighth account of supply and inland excise from 1 May 1699 to 1 May 1701 was given in by Sir George Home [of Kello] and partners.

Charge      
Firstly: per 14 months' supply 1,008,000 - -
Secondly: per 2 years' inland excise 612,000 - -
Thirdly: per rests of excise as per the preceding account given in to the accountants by Sir George Hamilton and [William Cochrane of] Ferguslie 36,000 - -
Fourthly: per balance resting by Sir George Hamilton 2,504 - -
Fifthly: balance due to the accountants 19,898 11 -
Total 1,678,402 11 -
Discharge      
Firstly: per payments made to the forces amounting to 1,647,263 10 -
Secondly: per extraneous precepts 28,538 6 -
Thirdly: per exemptions of supply 2,600 15 -
Total 1,678,402 11 -

Observations upon this account:

Firstly: that the accountants have charged themselves with no more of the excise than they received, namely: £612,000, but the excise being at that time farmed by Bailie [William] Menzies [of Gladstains] for £480,000 per annum, there is resting by him to make up the complete tack duty for two years £348,000 as per the committee's minutes, 25 January 1704, where are inserted the reasons of the deficiency.

Secondly: that there was given to the late [Archibald Campbell], duke of Argyll for private intelligence £582.

Thirdly: likewise to Major General [George] Ramsay for private intelligence £1,200.

Fourthly: to the accountants £13,996 16s for foraging the horses belonging to the troop of guards from 15 May to 20 September 1700, in which sum there is included 13s per day more than they had agreed upon with the treasury.

Fifthly: that the accountants had an allowance of £862 9s upon the account of the diminution of the quota of cess in Perthshire, which they should not have had because the diminution of the valuation of Perthshire increased that of Fife and Kinross.

Sixthly: that the accountants in their charge omit the fractions of cess, which amounts to £1,840.

This account was fitted and discharged to the accountants upon 3 March 1702.

General observations upon the funds of supply and excise from the year 1689 to the year 1701.

Firstly: that there was granted in the several sessions of King William's parliament during the aforesaid interval 88 months' cess, which extends to £6,336,000, but that some shires and burghs had their quotas thereof remitted to them by his majesty's warrants.

Secondly: that the tack duties and collections of excise did amount to £5,469,558 14s 8d, but this sum was not all brought in to the treasury by reason of deficiencies, allowances and abatements.

Thirdly: that the said deficiencies, allowances and abatements which are mentioned in our observations extend to £758,208 8s, besides many others which we passed over, because they were pretended to as legal allowances and deductions upon the account of manufactories, castles and garrisons etc.

Fourthly: that the frequency of granting abatements to tacksmen of the excise did give great encouragement for over-bidding in roups, which we leave to the estates of parliament to determine whether or not this tended to the oppression of the lieges.

Fifthly: that the sums mentioned in our observations, as given upon the account of provisions to the English forces and for raising recruits to their service, extending to £58,468 4s, is over and above the £48,000 remitted from England, we having found the said sum expended for their benefit as per the treasury accounts.

Sixthly: that the several sums given to his majesty's high commissioner and others of the civil list from 1690 to 1695 extend to £210,063 18s, but we leave it to the honourable estates of parliament to consider how far these can be called misapplications, since there was no strict appropriation of the excise for the use of the army until the parliament of 1695, for since that time we find nothing advanced for the benefit of the civil list, except the sum mentioned in our first observation upon the sixth account, which is repaid in part of a balance due to Sir James Oswald and James Dunlop in the second account.

May it please your grace and lordships,

Having laid before your lordships all the accounts of supply and inland excise from 11 April 1689 to 1 May 1701, we beg leave to represent that here we are obliged to close our report as to these funds, by reason the books of accounts and other instructions relating to the supply and excise from 1 May 1701 to this present time are still in the hands of the general receivers and commissaries of the army, and not as yet stated before the right honourable the lords of the treasury. But we acquaint your lordships that we have given all necessary orders to the end these books and instructions may be in readiness to be laid before you so soon as it is your pleasure to call for them, and, in the meantime, we proceed to give your grace and lordships an account of the extraordinary funds, such as the hearth money, poll-money and tunnage after the same method we observed in the supply and excise.

Account of the hearth money

The first extraordinary fund granted since 11 April 1689 was the hearth money by the third act of the third session of the parliament of King William and Queen Mary, which fund was by the said act strictly appropriated for paying the debts due to the country and the arrears to the army, being 14s for each hearth in the kingdom, to be paid in at Candlemas [2 February] 1691 without exception or exemption of any except the hearths of hospitals and of such poor as lived upon the charity of the parish. For the bringing in thereof, Mr James Melville of Cassingray was made principal collector, with power to him to name his subcollectors for whose intromissions he should be liable, as per his bond as principal and [David Leslie/Melville], earl of Leven as cautioner lying in the treasury.

The charge of the hearth money      
Firstly: by payments made to him and his subcollectors from several shires, as per the particular account 151,921 8 -
Discharge      
Firstly: by payments made by him to the forces upon the treasury's precepts as per accounts 137,533 9 -
Secondly: by the subcollectors' salaries, according to the lords of the treasury's establishment 7,008 3 -
Thirdly: balance due by Cassingray 1,379 16 -
Total 151,921 8 -

Observations on the hearth money:

Firstly: that Cassingray in his accounts has stated 8,677 hearths belonging to hospitals and poor people living on charity, as to which there can be no objections, these being excepted in the act.

Secondly: that he has stated 12,687 hearths deficient in their payments, but over and above that number, there was a whole parish deficient in the shire of Ayr, the whole lands pertaining to the sheriff of Moray, the whole lands pertaining to Grant of Elchies, the whole lands pertaining to the laird of Calder, the whole parish of Claich, the whole lands pertaining to the laird of Dunmaglass, likewise the houses of Rothesay, Kinross, Leidingtoun and Pinkie.

Thirdly: that he has omitted to state the charge of hearths in the shires following, namely: Dumfries, Kincardine, Ross, Cromarty, Nairn, Elgin and the stewartry of Orkney and Shetland, but acknowledges to have received £6,230 8s as part of the hearth money of the shires of Ross, Dumfries, Elgin, Nairn, Cromarty, Orkney and Shetland, the subcollectors of these shires not having given in their books nor testified upon the same.

Fourthly: that after he had stated his account with the treasury, the subcollector of Elgin and Nairn gave in his books to the treasury, wherein he makes the number of the hearths of that shire to extend to 3,145 hearths. Likewise that the subcollector of Kincardine gave in his books wherein the hearths of that shire extend to 3,628, but did not testify upon the verity of his list nor never accounted with the treasury.

Fifthly: that there was no books produced by the subcollectors of the shires of Dumfries, Ross, Cromarty, Orkney and Shetland.

Sixthly: that of the sum of £137,533 9s mentioned in Cassingray's discharge, there was £109,081 9s applied for payment of the arrears due to the forces, whereas by the act of parliament it should have been applied for payment of debts due by the army to the country in the first place. Likewise out of the aforesaid £137,533 9s, we find the sum of £28,452 paid for subsisting the forces then standing, which we humbly conceive was employed also by the lords of the treasury contrary to the design of the act.

Seventhly: that the balance of £7,379 16s mentioned in the discharge was paid up, or at least that there were precepts drawn upon Cassingray for the same, we having seen these precepts marked in the treasury books, but because sufficient documents were not produced for instructing that the persons to whom the balance was payable had received the same, therefore we allowed the earl of Leven a diligence for recovering any writs that were wanting to instruct the aforesaid payments, as also to bring in all the collectors who had not testified upon the verity of their books, nor accounted for their intromissions.

Account of the poll-money 1693

By the ninth act of the parliament of 1693, poll-money was granted for paying the debts due to the country and arrears to the army from 1 November 1689 to 1 February 1691, and strictly appropriated for that end.

The lords of the treasury set the same in tack to [William Ross], lord Ross, Sir John Cochrane of Ochiltree, Sir Robert Stewart of Allanbank, Sir George Hamilton of Barnton, Sir James Oswald of Fingalton, Bailie James Graham, William Cunningham of Brownhill and James Dunlop, collector, being eight principal tacksmen bound to the public each materially for a tack duty of £528,200, payable at two terms, namely: at Candlemas [2 February] and Whitsunday [10 June] 1695.

These eight principal tacksmen were afterwards joined with 14 co-partners, being in all 22 tacksmen, and accordingly they proceeded in the management of the poll, but because of the difficulties occurred to them in the collection thereof, the estates of parliament by the 31st act of the parliament of 1695 thought fit to turn the tack into a collection, so that the aforesaid 22 tacksmen became thereafter liable only as collectors and accountable for their intromissions. In the same act the parliament appointed commissioners to determine in all things relative to this poll, whereupon the said commissioners, according to a power given them, did set the poll in tack a second time to [John Hamilton], lord Belhaven, [Ludovic Grant], laird of Grant, Sir John Houston of that ilk and Sir Robert Dickson of Sornbeg for a tack duty of £360,000, whereof [George Baillie], laird of Jerviswood is made general receiver.

The said commissioners, after they had ordered several payments to be made to the country, they reported their proceedings to the parliament of 1698, whereupon it was remitted back to them to judge in all the difficulties they had found during their commission with a parliamentary power, but matters not being fully ended by them, there was a new commission appointed by the parliament of 1701 and instructed likewise with the same power. The lords and others of the second commission thought fit to break the second tack of the poll and turn it again into a collection, the 22 tacksmen above-mentioned being still liable as collectors.

Charge of the poll-money 1693 upon the collectors      
Collected of poll money by the several collectors 291,376 6 -
Discharge      
Firstly: paid in to Jerviswood, general receiver 223,705 10 -
Secondly: allowed to collectors for their expenses by the second commission of parliament 12,000 - -
Balance due by the collectors 55,670 16 -
Total 291,376 6 -

Observations on the poll 1693:

Firstly: that the breaking the second tack of the poll was an ease to the nation but a loss to the army.

Secondly: that the aforesaid sum of £223,705 10s paid in to Jerviswood was duly accounted for by him, being exhausted upon precepts from the treasury and the first commission of parliament, except as to £4,350 6s still in his hands.

Thirdly: that the country looking upon what was owing by the army to be a desperate debt, such disadvantageous transactions were made as the half of what was owing came to be lost, besides several sums are yet owing to the country, which are neither paid nor transacted.

Fourthly: that the balance due by the collectors, namely: £55,670 16s was by the second commission of parliament ordered to be put in the hands of Archibald Houston, their clerk, and now, by our order, transferred to Walter Riddell, our clerk, which at present is the only fund remaining for payment of the arrears due to the army from 1 November 1689 to 1 February 1691.

May it please your grace and lordships,

We humbly represent that though we are invested with a parliamentary power to divide the aforesaid balance, yet, finding several difficulties in the dividend, we must apply to your lordships for advice to determine after what manner it must be done. And for the more ease to your lordships or any other commissioners whom you shall appoint, we presume to acquaint you that there are two schemes of a dividend in the custody of our clerk, which, when considered by your lordships, we hope will give some light in this matter.

Account of the poll 1695

This poll was granted by the parliament of 1695 for providing ships of war and maintaining seamen for the defence of the coasts with a complete number of land forces. After this poll had been in collection for a year, the lords of the treasury set the same in tack to John Campbell of Knockrioch, principal tacksman, and to Hugh Cunningham and others, his partners, for the sum of £276,000.

Charge of the poll 1695      
Per the tack duty of the poll 276,000 - -
Balance due to the tacksman and partners 16,380 - -
Total 292,380 - -
Discharge of the poll 1695      
Firstly: by cash given in to the admiralty 237,120 - -
Secondly: by 7 per cent allowed to Sir James Oswald for collecting £175,200 12,264 - -
Thirdly: by the embezzlement of collectors 16,596 - -
Fourthly: by the quadruples of the poll of the army 17,760 - -
Fifthly: by the poll of the episcopal clergy 6,000 - -
Sixthly: by allowances to collectors 2,400 - -
Seventhly: by loss of money cried down 240 - -
Total 292,380 - -

Observations on the poll 1695:

Firstly: that the third article, namely: the embezzlement of collectors is not instructed, and supposing it were, yet we are of opinion the tacksman and his partners were bound to the public for the whole tack duty, though the whole collections had been embezzled.

Secondly: that the quadruples of the army should not be allowed, since their pay was in the hands of the commissaries and since the treasury must be considered as the common debtor.

Thirdly: that there should be no allowance for the poll of the episcopal clergy unless their number were instructed, considering that none but the episcopal ministers in Edinburgh were excepted, all other ministers being liable in their poll as gentlemen.

Fourthly: The £2,400 mentioned in the sixth article of the discharge was not instructed, except only the sum of £300.

Fifthly: that this poll having been for a long time under collection, has occasioned a considerable loss in the same.

Sixthly: that whereas the tacksmen pretend to a balance of £16,380, as is mentioned in the charge, they will be indebted to the public in £26,376 until the aforesaid observations be cleared, which will appear more clearly by our minutes, 11 February 1704, and by the minutes of our committee, 17 December 1703, and those of 11 January 1704.

Account of the poll-money 1698

Two polls were granted by the parliament of 1698 for clearing the arrears due to the land and sea officers, as likewise to the seamen belonging to the ships of war, with preference to those to whom any clothing money was due before 1691.

The said two polls were set in tack by the lords of treasury and exchequer to William Cochrane of Ferguslie and his cautioners for a tack duty of £241,200.

Charge of the poll 1698      
Per the tack duty 241,200 - -
Discharge      
Firstly: per payments made upon precepts from the treasury 193,522 16 -
Secondly: per payments made to the seamen in part of their arrears 9,600 - -
Thirdly: balance due by Ferguslie 38,077 4 -
Total 241,200 - -

Observations on the account of the poll 1698:

Firstly: that the first article was fully instructed and applied to the ends and uses for which the said polls were granted, but no preference given upon account of the clothing money.

Secondly: that though Ferguslie does discharge himself of the sum of £9,600 paid to seamen, yet by examining his accounts we find not above £7,200 had been paid to them, which he being questioned upon, acknowledged that because he had obliged himself to pay up the remainder, he had inserted that article in his discharge.

Thirdly: that several complaints were made upon Ferguslie by the seamen, as having obliged many of them to grant receipts for the whole of their arrears, whereas they received but the half.

Fourthly: that the balance of Ferguslie's account, namely: £38,077 4s is still resting by him, but, in order to his exoneration, there was a memorial given in by him (now in our clerk's hands) wherein he represents his grievances and the reasons of his deficiency.

Account of the tunnage

By an unprinted act of 1695 there was 16s imposed upon each tun of foreign ships trading in this kingdom, and 4s Scots on the tun of each Scots ship above 12 tuns burden.

This imposition commenced 1 August 1695, being appointed for carrying on an account of the ancient and present state of this kingdom and a geographical description thereof by Captain Slezer and John Adair, and was to be uplifted by the collectors of the customs, who were made liable for their omissions as well as their intromissions.

Upon 1 September 1698, the parliament did by a new act reduce the imposition of 16s per tun on foreign ships to 8s Scots per tun, for encouraging those who would export coal, and raised the aforesaid imposition to 24s per tun, to be exacted from all other foreign ships arriving in this kingdom upon the account of any other trade.

This new imposition, with the 4s above-mentioned on our own shipping, was continued 5 years, to be applied for keeping up the three frigates belonging to the government and for maintaining a professor of law at Edinburgh, in so far as there should be a surplus in the tunnage more than what should be found due to John Adair and Captain Slezer.

Charge of the tunnage upon the collectors from 1 August 1695 to 1 February 1698      
By collections 21,339 - -
Discharge      
For printing presses, types, paper and other charges for promoting the geographical description of this kingdom by John Adair 12,840 - -
To Captain Slezer 4,800 - -
To Sir Archibald Sinclair and Hugh Brown 3,300 - -
Balance resting by the collectors 399 - -
Total 21,339 - -

This is the best account we can give your lordships of the tunnage until the year 1698, for though nothing has been wanting in our part to the making up of a more exact charge upon the collectors by considering the report books belonging to the several custom houses and the books of the lights of the Isle of May, yet our endeavours have hitherto been unsuccessful. However, we have good reason to think that if this fund had been rightly managed, it had turned to a much better account.

We have succeeded no better in our inquiry into the same from 1 February 1698 to 1 September 1703. Only by a modest computation, and with respect to the first charge, we apprehend that at least the sum of £44,000 ought to be charged upon the collectors, but we hope there will be such measures laid down by Sir Andrew Home, now general collector of that fund, as will prove effectual for giving your lordships' satisfaction.

We must likewise represent to your lordships that four of our number did visit Mr Adair's work who told us it was far advanced and deserved encouragement.

We next proceed to give your lordships an account of what money was paid in to the admiralty.

The accounts of the admiralty given in by Hugh Cunningham.

Charge upon the admiralty      
Firstly: by cash received out of the poll-money and otherwise 237,558 - 9
Secondly: from Sir Andrew Myreton [of Gogar] per the treasury's precept in Sir George Hamilton's account 48,000 - -
Total 285,558 - 9
Discharge      
Firstly: for providing ships of war and maintaining the same with other necessaries belonging thereto 273,558 - 9
Secondly: given to Sir Andrew Myreton 12,000 - -
Total 285,558 - 9

Observations on the accounts of the admiralty:

Firstly: that the first article has been considered by a particular account and found fully instructed and applied for the use of the admiralty.

Secondly: that the £12,000 mentioned in the discharge as given to Sir Andrew Myreton, he retained the same for advancing £36,000 of the treasury's precept mentioned in the charge.

Thirdly: that considerable arrears are owing to the seaman, amounting to the sum of £84,000 or thereby.

May it please your grace and lordships,

We are sorry that a report so full and satisfactory cannot be made to your lords concerning the stores and magazines as we could wish, because we never could come to an exact knowledge of what provisions of arms were in the kingdom upon 11 April 1689.

Your lordships will see in the minutes of our committee dated 18 June 1704 how far our inquiry went in the records of the treasury and other accounts as to this matter, and be pleased to know that six of our number visited the castle of Edinburgh, who reported to us that they found the soldiers and great guns in very good order and that the present state of the magazines deserved very much your lordships' consideration, a more particular account of the same being in the custody of our clerk.

We likewise acquaint your lordships that besides such arms as are in good condition, we found 9,000 stand of old arms, which might be improved very much to the advantage of the nation.

The next thing we find ourselves in duty bound to acquaint you with is that though the standing forces since the year 1693 were paid as completely according to the establishments, yet by the check muster rolls subscribed by the magistrates of the places where the musters were made, it is evident that for the space of some years thereafter the several regiments and companies were seldom or never complete, but deficient in considerable numbers.

We cannot positively affirm who must be answerable to your lordships for these abuses, the muster-master general being now out of the kingdom, who we doubt not is able to inform your lordships better of this matter than we can. Only in all humility we must represent that this deserves your lordships' consideration that a right method may be fallen upon for preventing the same in time coming.

We will now give your lordships an account of what arrears are resting to the army from time to time, and will subjoin to it an abstract of such clear debts and rests that are still owing to the public by the particular tacksmen and collectors named in the preceding accounts.

Account of arrears due to the army for clearings and clothing money from 1 November 1689 to 1 December 1700

Resting to the army from 1 November 1689 to 1 February 1691 374,477 15 9
From 1 February 1691 to 1 February 1693 107,828 17 -
From 1 February 1698 to 1 January 1698 171,324 2 -
From 1 January to 1 July 1698 45,510 9 -
From 1 July 1698 to 1 December 1700 637,132 2 -
Total £1,336,273 05 9

Observations upon the arrears due to the army

Firstly: that if the forces had been paid according to their numbers as they were mustered, a far less sum had been resting to them.

Secondly: that the establishments were increased from time to time and in no way proportionable to the funds appointed by the parliament.

Thirdly: that the deficiencies, allowances and abatements in the tack duties of excise gave occasion to the arrears above-mentioned.

Account of what is resting to the public of the cess, excise, hearth money, poll-money and tunnage since the year 1689 to 1701

Rests of cess and excise as per our observations in the second account 78,182 - -
By the fractions of cess omitted in the second account 400 - -
By the rests of cess and excise as per the discharge of fourth account 48,447 - -
By Sir Thomas Moncrieff to account of the civil list 33,128 10 -
By Sir Thomas Kennedy of his tack duty of excise 22,464 - -
By [Sir Alexander Bruce of] Broomhall as the balance of the fifth account 15,140 8 -
By [James Douglas], duke of Queensberry's bonds 42,144 - -
By the late [Archibald Campbell], duke of Argyll's bond 9,437 4 -
By Colonel Hamilton's bond 588 - -
By the fractions of cess omitted in the sixth account 1,300 6 -
By rests of cess and excise not carried to any subsequent account as per our observation on the seventh account 20,104 5 -
By fractions of cess omitted in the seventh account 2,400 - -
By Bailie [William] Menzies [of Gladstains] and Captain Wood of their tack duty of excise 348,000 - -
By the fractions of cess omitted in the eighth account 1,846 - -
By the collectors of the poll 1693 55,670 16 -
By [George Baillie of] Jerviswood of the poll-money of 1693 4,350 16 -
By the tacksmen and partners of the poll of 1695 until four articles of their accounts be instructed 26,376 - -
By the tacksmen of the poll 1698 38,077 4 -
Total of rests extends to 749,066 9 -

Beside these debts owing to the public, they will be considerable sums resting out of the hearth money and tunnage, these funds not being brought as yet to any distinct charge.

May it please your grace and lordships,

We have now put a close to our report, and hope that your lordships will excuse us if any mistake be found in it or if we have not answered the expectations of this honourable house in any point of our commission.

By order and warrant of the commission, [David Carnegie, earl of] Northesk, in the presence of the committee

  1. NAS. PA3/7, bound after 1704 printed minutes, printed copy, 1-21 or NAS. PA6/35, 'July 21 1704', f.1-11. Back